|
Telecom Order CRTC 2006-294
|
|
Ottawa, 1 November 2006 |
|
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership
|
|
Reference: Tariff Notice 23 |
|
Destandardization of Type C local loop service
|
|
In this Order, the Commission
approves Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership's
application to destandardize Type C local loop service. |
1. |
The Commission received an application by
Bell Aliant Regional Communications, Limited Partnership (Bell Aliant),
dated 21 July 2006, proposing revisions to its Access Services Tariff
(AST) item 105, Local Network Interconnection and Component Unbundling
(AST item 105), to destandardize Type C local loop service and remove it
from AST item 105 as it was a redundant service. Bell Aliant indicated
that the changes being proposed in its application corresponded to
proposed modifications to Bell Canada's AST filed with the Commission on
21 July 2006 under Tariff Notice 6971. |
2. |
Bell Aliant indicated that it would
continue to offer and provide the functionality associated with Type C
local loops through its Competitor Digital Network (CDN) or Digital
Network Access (DNA) services, as applicable. |
|
Background
|
3. |
In New procedures for disposition of
applications dealing with the destandardization and/or withdrawal of
tariffed services, Telecom Circular CRTC 2005-7, 30 May 2005
(Circular 2005-7), the Commission indicated that in order for it to
properly assess a proposal for the destandardization and/or withdrawal
of a tariffed service, the applicant must file an application containing
the following information: |
|
a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn;
|
|
b) proposed date for destandardization;
|
|
c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service;
|
|
d) type of destandardization;
|
|
e) rationale for the application;
|
|
f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it was
reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the
same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and
ongoing costs to the customer);
|
|
g) the transition plan;
|
|
h) relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the
number of customers affected;
|
|
i) a copy of the notice to affected customers; and
|
|
j) any other information the applicant believed was relevant.
|
4. |
The Commission further indicated in
Circular 2005-7 that if the applicant considered that certain criteria
did not apply to a particular application, the applicant was expected to
provide submissions on why it believed those criteria should not apply. |
5. |
The Commission noted in Circular 2005-7 that the applicant had to provide notice to each customer affected by
its application to destandardize and/or withdraw a particular service,
and that the notices should be sent to affected customers on the date
the application was filed. In the notice, the applicant had to include
items a) to g) set out in paragraph 3 above, as well as clear and
detailed information as to how an affected customer could participate in
the Commission's process, including the date when comments must be
received by the Commission. Further, the Commission noted in Circular
2005-7 that interested parties should be allowed 45 calendar days to
comment on an applicant's destandardization and/or withdrawal
application. |
|
Bell Aliant's application |
6. |
Bell Aliant provided the following
information in support of its application, in conformance with the
criteria established in Circular 2005-7: |
|
a) service proposed to be destandardized and/or withdrawn
|
|
Bell Aliant proposed to destandardize AST item 105 Type C
local loop service.
|
|
b) proposed date for destandardization
|
|
Bell Aliant requested that the Commission grant interim approval
to the proposed destandardization of Type C local loop service, with
an effective date of 4 September 2006.
|
|
c) proposed date for ultimate withdrawal of service
|
|
Not applicable – Bell Aliant submitted that it was not proposing
to withdraw Type C local loop service at this time.
|
|
d) type of destandardization
|
|
Bell Aliant proposed to destandardize Type C local loop service
by discontinuing the offering of this service for new installations,
moves, rearrangements, or other changes at the same or different
premises. Bell Aliant submitted that a customer wishing to expand
its Type C local loop service could do so by using CDN or DNA
services, as applicable.
|
|
e) rationale for the application
|
|
Bell Aliant indicated that AST item 105 Type C local loop service
was provided at the rates, terms, and conditions specified in AST
item 130, Competitor Digital Network (CDN) Services, or at the
rates, terms, and conditions specified in National Services Tariff
item 301.3, Digital Network Access (DNA) – Rates and Charges.
Bell Aliant submitted that there was no difference in functionality
between a CDN or DNA Access at DS-1 speed and a Type C local loop.
However, the company noted that it incurred incremental costs to
support Type C local loops under AST item 105 in addition to CDN and
DNA services.
|
|
Bell Aliant submitted that Type C local loops had become
redundant and, in view of the incremental costs to maintain the
service, the company proposed to destandardize Type C local loop
service.
|
|
In order to ensure that the destandardization of Type C local
loop service from AST item 105 did not impact a customer,
Bell Aliant indicated that it would continue providing in-service
Type C local loops to customers currently subscribing to the
service. If customers wished to expand or change their Type C local
loop service, they could do so by using CDN or DNA services, as
applicable. Similarly, new customers would be offered and provided
CDN or DNA services in place of Type C local loops.
|
|
f) availability of a substitute, with rationale as to why it is
reasonable in terms of equivalent functionality, availability in the
same geographical area, and cost (including the initial outlay and
ongoing costs to the customer)
|
|
As noted above, the company would continue to offer and provide
in-service Type C local loops to an existing customer. If a customer
sought to increase its number of in-service Type C local loops or
change its Type C local loops, it would be provided the
functionality associated with Type C local loops through the
company's CDN or DNA services. The company submitted that its CDN
and DNA services were available in the same geographical areas as
the Type C local loops offered under AST item 105, and provided
identical functionality as Type C local loop service.
|
|
g) the transition plan
|
|
Bell Aliant submitted that a customer who maintained its existing
in-service Type C local loops would not be transitioned to another
service. Bell Aliant further submitted that if a customer expanded
or changed its Type C local loop service, it would be able to do so
using CDN or DNA services, as applicable.
|
|
h) relevant information concerning existing customers, such as the
number of customers affected
|
|
Bell Aliant submitted that the single customer subscribing to
Type C local loop service also subscribed to its CDN and DNA
services and, as such, was familiar with existing CDN and DNA
ordering systems and processes. Bell Aliant was of the view that if
its single customer wished to expand or change its Type C local loop
services it would require little or no assistance in the transition
from ordering Type C local loops to ordering CDN or DNA services.
|
|
i) a copy of the notice to affected customers
|
|
Bell Aliant indicated that on 21 June 2006, Bell Canada, on
behalf of Bell Aliant, had issued a letter to Bell Aliant's existing
customer for Type C local loop service describing the proposal to
destandardize that service. Bell Aliant noted that the letter
included information regarding its intent to work with this customer
for the purpose of assisting the customer in the ordering of CDN and
DNA services. Further, Bell Aliant noted that the letter invited the
customer to provide comments on the proposal by 30 June 2006, and
provided the customer with information regarding Circular 2005-7.
|
|
Bell Aliant further noted that it had copied its affected
customer with this application. Bell Aliant indicated that the
affected customer was an experienced participant in Commission
proceedings and was aware of how to participate in the
destandardization process.
|
|
j) any other information the applicant believed was relevant
|
|
No additional information was filed.
|
7. |
The Commission did not receive comments on
this application. |
|
Commission's analysis and determinations
|
8. |
The Commission finds that Bell Aliant has
fulfilled the customer notification and evidentiary requirements of
Circular 2005-7, with one exception. The Commission notes that
Bell Canada, by letter dated 21 June 2006, notified Bell Aliant's Type C
local loop service customer of the company's proposal to destandardize
such service, and invited that customer in that letter to provide
comments on Bell Canada's proposal by 30 June 2006. However, as set out
in paragraph 23 of Circular 2005-7, interested parties should be allowed
45 calendar days to comment on a company's destandardization and/or
withdrawal application. The Commission notes, however, that 45 calendar
days have passed since the company filed its application, and no
comments were received from interested parties. |
9. |
The Commission considers Bell Aliant's
application to destandardize Type C local loop service to be reasonable.
In light of the above, the Commission approves Bell Aliant's
application, effective the date of this Order. |
|
Secretary General |
|
This document is available in
alternative format upon request, and may also be examined in PDF format or in HTML at the following Internet site:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca |